Heat distortion effects.

[mcbmaestro]

Sorry I've it's been suggested, I've searched and reread the planned features list and didn't see anything about this.

Was just thinking heat distortion effects would be really great. I'll leave it at that since we all know what heat distortion is.

This is just a quick rendition of what I thought it could look like, crude as it is.

Edited March 1, 2014 by mcbmaestro

[Sauron]

I suspect that something like this would have a pretty steep computational cost. Distorting stuff is pretty involved render-wise (if you have a 3d program with ray-tracing and reflections/distortions you can see why this is for yourself). Also, making Unity do it might be hard (though that's entirely outside of my area of expertise).

[xrayfishx]

I don't see why people want better graphics in KSP. If you have a capable computer, just get ENB and tune it to fit KSP or sth. Sure, people with good computers would be happy to see this, but I'm playing it on a laptop and I already need to turn the graphics to almost minimum, keep the part count under 100 if possible and so on, just to be able to play.

Graphics, like it or not, is the cancer of gaming these days. Even EA used to publish good games, but now everyone just wants to create better graphics as rapidly as possible. I could go on ranting about it, but I hope my point gets through without it.

[vetrox]

Heh, I kinda like that. Its not essential but I quite like it. However, I do spend an awefull lot of time staring at the nav ball when my engines are running. Maybe in V1.01

Sure, people with good computers would be happy to see this, but I'm playing it on a laptop and I already need to turn the graphics to almost minimum, keep the part count under 100 if possible and so on, just to be able to play.

I've noticed alot of people on this forum seem to be trying to play ksp on basic laptops and to be fair KSP isnt exactly GPU intensive.

One could argue that "gamers" will always have a capable rig. Whilst graphics certainly dont make a game, they do add a consideral amount of immersion. Wouldnt you love it if ksp looked like Space engine (if your pc could handle it)

[Red Iron Crown]

The higher the minimum GPU requirements, the fewer people will be able to play the game. KSP, with its unique gameplay, is more appealing than most games to people outside the traditional "moar graphics" gamer demographic, people who are less likely to have a high end video card.

Eye candy is great, but allow it to be turned off or down in the settings for those with less capable machines.

(Disclosure: I may be biased about this as I'm not a "gamer" even though I play a lot of KSP. If I needed a separate "gaming" PC to play, I would have to give it up.)

[Red Iron Crown]

I suspect that something like this would have a pretty steep computational cost. Distorting stuff is pretty involved render-wise (if you have a 3d program with ray-tracing and reflections/distortions you can see why this is for yourself). Also, making Unity do it might be hard (though that's entirely outside of my area of expertise).

Unity has a couple of blur effects built in, I would think that those could be bent to the purpose of heat distortion without resorting to performance killing ray tracing.

[vetrox]

The higher the minimum GPU requirements, the fewer people will be able to play the game. KSP, with its unique gameplay, is more appealing than most games to people outside the traditional "moar graphics" gamer demographic, people who are less likely to have a high end video card.

Eye candy is great, but allow it to be turned off or down in the settings for those with less capable machines.

(Disclosure: I may be biased about this as I'm not a "gamer" even though I play a lot of KSP. If I needed a separate "gaming" PC to play, I would have to give it up.)

This is what I mean. You dont by any means need a gaming pc to play ksp but it just baffles me (im not trying to insult anyone here. Its just me because I'm used to always haveing a moderatley capable pc) that people try to play games on run of the mill laptops. I can understand that you want to play ksp because its awesome but my backwards brain cant comprehend people trying to play games on office spec laptops.To br fair the only thing keeping most laptops back is the lack of a GPU. "gaming"laptops are just regular laptops with a GPU stuffed in. With desktops its slightly different because even with one of the crummy pc's here at work, I could just pop down to maplins and buy a cheap £30-£50 graphics card and plug it in. Its a shame laptops dont have this option

I have a friend who used to try and play dota with me but all he had was a basic laptop and had a choice of running dota or running skype but not both.

A half decent pc costs about the same as a console (excluding the display)

With regards to the original post. This is the sort of effect that would deffinatley have the option to enable or disable so if it was implemented I wouldnt worry about your pc struggling. However its not something that should have dev time allocated to it yet. Maybe one day in the distant future Squad will release and optional high res texture pack that comes with all sorts of eye candy goodies so those with the more powerfull rigs can take advantage of it without alienating those on lower spec machines. Kind of like how Skyrim has a sexy high res texture pack.

Edited March 1, 2014 by vetrox

[Red Iron Crown]

This is what I mean. You dont by any means need a gaming pc to play ksp but it just baffles me (im not trying to insult anyone here. Its just me because I'm used to always haveing a moderatley capable pc) that people try to play games on run of the mill laptops. I can understand that you want to play ksp because its awesome but my backwards brain cant comprehend people trying to play games on office spec laptops.

People try to play on the computers they have. Maybe they didn't anticipate playing 3D intensive games or didn't understand the difference between integrated and discrete graphics. Maybe they needed a laptop and could only afford a low end one, which makes it pretty much impossible to get a decent GPU. Maybe their parents bought their PC for them and went cheap. There's any number of reasons why someone might own a PC with a poor GPU in it. Some of those people want to play KSP, too, and more copies will be sold if they are able to.

A half decent pc costs about the same as a console (excluding the display)

The PC I already own costs nothing. I cannot justify another machine just to play KSP, even if it is only $400-500. I understand that someday KSP might reach a level of complexity that makes my PC unsuitable for it; I'll be sad if that ever happens.

That said, I understand that good looking graphics are part of a game's appeal (though less so with KSP than other games, I think), and I fully expect that the game will continue to improve graphically as it is developed. I just hope that the eye candy can be turned down or off so I (and others like me) can keep playing.

[OTehNoes]

Whilst I understand the notion of gaming on a less than capable PC, as I used to do it for years, games shouldn't be limited because people want to run it on lesser hardware. I came from playing on integrated graphics, 2gb RAM and a 2.0 gHz processor to an ancient Alienware that I had off a friend for £200 with a 2.0 gHz processor, 4gb of RAM and an Nvidia 9800M, and now I've finally got myself a proper gaming PC that can run anything I throw at it maxed out. And I've got to say, as a long time gamer, it's worth it.

I understand the misery of having to run a game at absolute minimum at 9 fps (my early Gmod years, the lag still haunts me), but you can't expect games to be held back because people are trying to run them on a rig with less than sufficient hardware. It just isn't how the industry works unfortunately, games will always strive to be better.

All of this aside and more relevant to the topic, I'd like to see this implemented, as I doubt it would be very intensive. That said, I would have suggested making a demonstration imagine that isn't over the sea, you can hardly see what you're trying to suggest! Though for the benefit of anybody that can't figure it out, he means something like this:

Edited March 1, 2014 by OTehNoes

[technicalfool]

A half decent pc costs about the same as a console (excluding the display)

I don't know where people get this from. An entry-level PC might cost around the same as a next-gen console. A decent PC will almost certainly cost more, and will cost vastly more than the PS3, X360 or Wii.

Different business models. With a PC, you're paying for the PC. A console is sold on the razor blade model, where the money is in the games. Or rather, in taking a cut from the games. A PC will always be pricier than the equivalent-specced games console.

And yes, I'd love to see if Squad could get this effect done as an option. Transparent cones behind the jet exhausts with a box-blur and some kind of ripple shader applied to it? Pretty much any GPU could handle that, and the effect can be turned off if you only have an Intel "Games, My Ass" chipset.

[Tery215]

I believe that heat distortion is a mere atmospheric effect, not an effect in space.

It's kerbal space program. Atmospheres are not part of deep space.

[OTehNoes]

I believe that heat distortion is a mere atmospheric effect, not an effect in space.

It's kerbal space program. Atmospheres are not part of deep space.

Well have you perhaps considered the fact that there are atmospheres on planets? Where do you find planets? Space.

By your logic lift, drag, parachutes, wings, jet engines, air intakes should all be removed, because they're to do with the atmosphere, not space.

[Red Iron Crown]

I believe that heat distortion is a mere atmospheric effect, not an effect in space.

It's kerbal space program. Atmospheres are not part of deep space.

Guess we don't need all those aerodynamic parts, then.

Edit: ninja'd!

[Nathair]

just get ENB and tune it to fit KSP or sth.

ENB, right. What's "sth"?

[mcbmaestro]

Thanks for that image OhTehNoes, that does a much better job. And thanks for the responses everyone.

Edited March 2, 2014 by mcbmaestro

[vger]

I don't see why people want better graphics in KSP. ---

Graphics, like it or not, is the cancer of gaming these days. Even EA used to publish good games, but now everyone just wants to create better graphics as rapidly as possible. I could go on ranting about it, but I hope my point gets through without it.

Ehh, you're only partially right. The trouble with better graphics in games is typically that people want them in games where it couldn't possibly enhance the experience. A classic example is racing games. If there's aren't bits of gravel WITH shadows on a dirt path, people complain it looks fake, even though there's no way you could possibly notice that missing detail when you're screaming along it at 200mph.

Bit KSP? These little details are great for those times when you don't want to "play" and you just want to throttle back the time warp to normal speed, sit back, and stare at a world. KSP is an experience, not just a game, and a lot of us play it because we actually want to be "out there" gazing upon the foreign worlds of our solar system. It would just make sense if those worlds get as much attention to detail as possible.

[RSwordsman]

Bit KSP? These little details are great for those times when you don't want to "play" and you just want to throttle back the time warp to normal speed, sit back, and stare at a world. KSP is an experience, not just a game, and a lot of us play it because we actually want to be "out there" gazing upon the foreign worlds of our solar system. It would just make sense if those worlds get as much attention to detail as possible.

You nailed it. KSP is in no small fraction, scenery ****. The game's already gorgeous, and a few small tweaks like this would take it to the next level.

P.S. Atmospheric heat ripples are not so graphics-intensive that they couldn't throw them into Just Cause 2. (look at the jetway below the right side of the chopper)

EDIT: Harder to see in this one, but here's another example from SW: KotOR 2, a much older game. It can be done.

http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/101261-star-wars-knights-of-the-old-republic-ii-the-sith-lords-windows.png

Edited March 3, 2014 by RSwordsman

[Camacha]

I don't know where people get this from. An entry-level PC might cost around the same as a next-gen console. A decent PC will almost certainly cost more, and will cost vastly more than the PS3, X360 or Wii.

First of all, no. Even the console tech of the new consoles is not top of the line. For a limited budget you can build a PC that is not much more expensive and will equal or surpass the consoles. Secondly, pretty much everyone needs a PC for other purposes anyway. The difference in cost between a basic PC and one that plays games decently (I am not talking about high-end 120 fps rigs here) is a lot smaller than the new consoles will set you back and will easily outperform them. A PC is a much more versatile tool which most people will purchase anway. Games or not.

I am not saying one or the other is better - that is totally up to your personal preferences and play style, but costs are not really an argument, especially if you take game prices into account too.

[vger]

Another thing about PC's, if you know what you're doing, you can have a PC that will last longer than a console. Not referring to breaking, but simply the rate at which consoles are being rendered obsolete these days. My current PC is nearly 7 years old now. I built it for gaming and the only thing I've had to do in all that time is replace a fried GPU. I'm still perfectly happy with it and still see no need to replace it.

[jaredkzr]

Let's not spark a console/pc war here guys. I'm all for extra eye-candy and effects but we must have the ability to disable or enable them as we see fit. I run KSP on my gaming desktop and my Lenovo laptop with integrated graphics. I don't want KSP on my laptop to not perform as well as I'd like just so I can get some wavy effects behind engines. On my desktop however, I'm all for enhanced graphics and atmospheric effects.

As RSwordsman said, these ripple effects can be done without causing a massive performance drop. I think this should at least be looked into for later versions but it's by no means a high priority task.

[MR4Y]

A half decent pc costs about the same as a console (excluding the display)

That applies only to your country.

A half decent pc here is more expensive than a console. A decent PC is 2 to 3 times more expensive.

[Alex_Leonardo]

Ahh, please, not the graphics, I'm sure the devs will focus on the gameplay first.

I would very much like to see heat distortion and burns as a feature, meaning parts can be warped by fires and damaged.

No, deadly re-entry mod, real heat warping and damage and burns in the game.

[RSwordsman]

parts can be warped by fires and damaged.

As awesome as that sounds, I'm pretty sure they were talking about the shimmery atmospheric refraction effect when something makes the air really hot.

[Alex_Leonardo]

As awesome as that sounds, I'm pretty sure they were talking about the shimmery atmospheric refraction effect when something makes the air really hot.

I know what they were talking about.

I was saying that the devs shouldn't focus on the graphics of heat distortion and actually focus on gameplay features, such As the one you quoted.

[vetrox]

Well just to end pc cost versus console cost etc